Trying out PTD with NGOs in Peru and Bolivia
Henk de Zeeuw
ETC-Netherlands, Leusden, The Netherlands
tel +31-33-4943086, fax +31-33-4940791; E-mail:
0. Introduction
This paper is written as a contribution to the internal workshop on PTD organised by ETC EcoCulture in July ‘98, in which -unfortunately- I could not participate and for which this paper was finished too late. However, I hope and expect that several subscribers to the PTD discussion list will be interested in the approach and experiences generated by the PTD project in Peru and Bolivia. Involved in this project are Centro Ideas (co-ordination of the implementation), ETC (technical advisor) and ICCO (funding support) since 1996.
The paper was written during two flights to and from Peru. I had little time for reviewing and editing. If you want more information on certain issues please let me know. I would also welcome comments and suggestions that can further improve our work in Peru and Bolivia.
1. backgroundS
Origin
This project originated as part of the follow up activities, undertaken by ICCO, of the study on Sustainable Agriculture that was implemented in 1994.
One of the findings of that report was that although the ICCO partners in Peru and Bolivia talk a lot about participation, their actual practice at field level was not participatory at all, particularly not when it came to technology development.
Most of the more established NGOs have a tradition in assisting farmers’ organisations in their struggle for access to land and improved government services (“concientización” and farmer organisation, linked with leadership education, alphabetisation and other educational programmes). It is only after the start of the liberalisation policies in the mid eighties that these NGOs started to rethink their own role and develop more economically productive programmes, filling the gap left by the shrinking government extension system.
The last few years many NGOs adopt a strong ecological orientation. These NGOs are tempted to propose their “alternative” technologies to farmers in a way comparable to how the conventional package was “transferred” to farmers, although the rhetoric is quite different. Their ideological drive might even make things worse because this easily leads to an approach that puts much effort into “making the farmers aware” and “convincing” farmers, while lacking critical assessment of the technical, socio-economic and ecological relevance and of the applicability of the technologies proposed by the NGO.
The findings of the study were discussed in a workshop with all partners. Support in the field of methodology development was among the priorities.
Against this background, ICCO supported my suggestion to develop a support programme to introduce and adapt the PTD approach among their partner organisations and other NGOs in the Andean region. ETC had been running around with ideas of a global programme on PTD and this project (in our mind) could be the Latin American part of that global programme.
Project preparation process
a. Selection of co-ordinating organisation
I visited some organisations that ICCO regarded as potential co-ordinators of such a programme, to discuss this initiative and to sound their interest. Finally, Centro Ideas was requested to take the lead in the preparation and implementation of this programme with the assistance of ETC-NL. Centro Ideas has a focus on ecological agriculture, is the leading agency in the Agro-ecological Network of Peru (RAE) and had just implemented a project to systematise NGO experiences with ecological projects, which demonstrated their capacity to co-ordinate such a project.
b. Project profile
I wrote a first set-up of the project profile. This was then discussed with some staff members of Centro Ideas.
c. Selection of participating organisations
A senior staff member of Centro Ideas visited a large number of NGOs in Peru and Bolivia. In drawing up the list we took into account the following criteria: organisations with proven sustainability, with a focus on sustainable agriculture and participatory approaches, having the capacity to apply and document a PTD process. Preconditions were: (1) employ at least 1 agronomist, (2) have linkages with university and/or research institutes, (3) have an institutional commitment.
Sixteen organisations were selected: 8 from Peru, 8 from Bolivia.
In Boliviathe first year: / the second year:
SEMTA, La Paz / KURMI, La Paz
IICCA, Tarija / ACLO, Potosí
CICDA/PRADEM, Sucre / QHANA, La Paz
CENDA, Cochabamba / CEPAC, Santa Cruz
In Peru
the first year: / the second year:
Centro IDEAS, Piura / CICAP, Chiclayo
CEDAP, Ayacucho / IDMA, Abancay
ARARIWA, Cusco / CICCA, Abancay
CIED, Puno / IMA, Cusco
d. Finalising project document and budget; approval by ICCO
During the above mentioned visits the project profile was discussed with the potential participating organisations resulting in a number of adaptations in the set-up of the project.
Also, a Consultative Committee was installed comprising a representative of Centro Ideas (Alfredo Stecher), one ecologist from Bolivia (Jose Lorini, Instituto de Ecología),
an agronomist from Peru (Mario Tapia, CIP-CONDESAN) and myself.
The committee meets twice a year and advises Centro Ideas on the development of the project.
2. Project Objectives
The main objective of the project is to experiment with the PTD approach with NGOs in the Andes in order to adapt the methodology to the situation in the Andes and the normal working conditions of NGOs. At that time, most PTD experiences were generated in the context of international research institutes and projects with human and financial resources that are not commonly available in NGOs. The socio-cultural, ecological and economical conditions in the Andes require adaptation of the methodology and the development of “regionalised” staff and farmer training materials.
As part of the process, the project seeks to strengthen the capacity of the participating organisations to implement participatory approaches in the development and diffusion of agricultural technologies
The results of the process will be shared with other organisations (private and public) that support sustainable agricultural development, both during and at the end of the project.
Concrete expected outputs of the project are:
a. A staff training manual, including instruments for documentation, monitoring and evaluation of PTD experiments, guidelines for facilitating participatory diagnosis, design of the experiments, implementation, evaluation and diffusion;
b. Illustrated materials for farmer training;
c. 2 videos on PTD process and results;
d. 32 technicians and 32 thesis students in 16 NGOs trained in the PTD approach;
e. 8 organisations having implemented and documented at least 3 experiments each; 8 organisations having implemented at least 2 experiments each (40 experiments in total).
3. process OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
a. Team formation and basic training
The project team consists of three half time persons: project co-ordinator (Julio Chavez Achong, a sociologist) and two team members who co-ordinate and facilitate the activities in Peru (Sandro Chavez) and Bolivia (Rodrigo Villavicencio). Although the original idea was to have at least one woman in the team, three males were appointed in the end. A female staff member of Centro Ideas assisted the team in gender issues (on a consultancy contract). The Peruvian team member is an agronomist with a background in agro-ecology. The Bolivian team member is an agronomist with experience in the PRA approach and participatory project planning.
I met with the newly appointed team in Peru and we discussed the various conceptual, methodological and operational aspects of the project.
The team members then started preparations for the first activities to be implemented. Shortly after, they participated in a training course organised by CIAT in Ecuador on what they call the CIAL methodology (having many similarities to the PTD approach)
During the next team meeting we discussed the experiences gained during this course as a way to specify the approach followed in this project.
b. Meeting with NGO directors
A workshop with the directors of all participating NGOs was organised.
We were of the opinion that a strong commitment of the top of the NGOs would be vital for the success of the project. Training of staff and some isolated experiments would not make much impact on the NGO if the directors and programme co-ordinators of the NGOs were not well aware of the experiments going on. Proper information would lead to their giving support to the integration of the methodology in the institutional approach and working methodologies.
During the meeting we introduced the directors or programme co-ordinators of the first batch of EGOs (during the first year participation was restricted to EGOs) to the main PTD concepts and discussed the pre-requisites for a successful application of the PTD approach.
At the start of the next year the meeting was repeated involving the directors of the first and second batch of NGOs (during the second year 8 other NGOs entered the project).
These meetings proved to be of vital importance for the enhancement of “ownership” of the project among participating organisations and for their commitment to the project.
In order to prevent NGOs entering the project only or mainly to get access to funding, the budget of the PTD project was based on the assumption that the costs of the facilitation and implementation of the local experiments would be carried by the participating EGOs themselves. The project only covers costs related to the training and coaching of staff and costs related to the production and distribution of training materials.
This arrangement may sometimes complicate the implementation of the local PTD process in the beginning, for instance in those cases where the PTD activities were not yet integrated in the operational plan of the NGO concerned. Staff involved then complains that they have to do a lot more work and lack the proper means to do it. However, it prevents the responsibility for the local activities being transferred to the project and puts pressure on the NGO to fully integrate the PTD process in the institutional approach and planning mechanism.
c. Start up workshop
Each NGO sent 1 technician and 1 thesis student to the workshop.
During this first workshop we developed the following activities:
* Introduction to the backgrounds, rationale and main characteristics of PTD as compared to both formal on-station research and ongoing farmer experimentation;
* Participants presented and discussed their own experiences with participatory methods of technology development and diffusion;
* Review of main concepts involved
* Discussion on the role of the NGO/technicians in the PTD process; identification of required skills and attitudes for PTD facilitator
* Strengthening of basic skills (horizontal communication, listening, asking questions, observation, systematic field notes, etc.)
* Review of the PTD process; self identification of main elements of each step or cluster of activities in the process
* Preparation in groups of field exercises with the first steps in the process: preparations, entrance in the community, participatory diagnosis of community resources and farming systems, prioritisation of themes for experimentation (key problem or potential), focused diagnosis of the priority problem or potential, collection of information regarding technologies to try and evaluation of these options, design of the experiments)
* Implementation of field exercises in a community selected by one of the NGOs with commitment for follow-up and continuity (in reality, the practical exercise did not go beyond diagnosis and establishment of the main research priority)
* Review of field experiences and preparation of the back home activities
The materials prepared for and enriched during this workshop were used to develop a first and partial draft of the staff-training guide.
d. Field work period
In this period (some 8 weeks) the participants initiated the PTD process in their own working situation. During this period, one of the co-ordinators visited the participating staff and farmers on the site to familiarise with the local conditions and participating farmers, and to assist the technicians to overcome certain problems they encountered and enforce the learning process (coaching).
e. Second workshop
During this second workshop we developed the following activities:
a. Review of the experiences gained with facilitating the first steps of the process:
- First we looked into the participatory process and the roles of the various actors;
- Thereafter, each of the participating organisations presented the draft design of the experiment they planned with the farmers: rationale, objective, participants, experimental variables and treatment levels, layout and statistical design, organisation and management of the experiment, criteria for the monitoring and methods of registration and monitoring); the discussions resulted in suggestions for improvement of the individual experiments as well as identification of flaws in the diagnosis and design process;
- This was followed by detailed discussion about the next steps or activity clusters: implementation and monitoring of the experiments, evaluation of results, diffusion of results, planning of the next cycle of experimentation and related working methods and tools.;
- Finally we discussed the proper documentation and reporting of the experiences. This included the formulation of the main hypothesis of the project and identification of criteria and indicators of verification (which will be discussed below).
The materials developed before and during the workshop were used to develop the manual further.
f. Implementation of the experiments
During the implementation period, all NGOs were visited at least once by one of the co-ordinators.
Both farmers and the NGO (thesis student) maintained certain records. Photo and video registration of the PTD process and the experiments was encouraged.
g. Evaluation workshop
During this workshop, each NGO presented the experiences gained during the implementation process and the results of the experiment, making use of a list of performance criteria and indicators.
On the basis of the 2 field reports that had been forwarded by the participating NGOs to the co-ordinators, the latter had prepared a synthesis of the main experiences and some recommendations for improvement. These were discussed in the workshop leading to amendments in the methodology to be applied in the second year.
In this workshop we also discussed in more detail questions that had to do with the diffusion of results and the institutionalisation of the PTD process at local and regional level.
Results of the workshop were used to further develop the draft PTD manual.
h. Second year
During the second year the above-described process was repeated (now with 16 organisations) and the coaching activities were continued.